That amazon.com charges publishers co-op advertising fees for “placement” within the top-level pages of its catalog should surprise no one. It’s the cyberspace equivalent of buying an endcap or a window display, I suppose. Happens all the time in retail.
That amazon.com charges publishers co-op advertising fees of up to five figures for reviews and recommendations, however, should surprise and appall all of us.
Doreen Carvajal of the New York Times broke the story on February 8, 1999 that amazon.com charges publishers US$10,000 for title placement on the category home page, an author profile, and “complete amazon.com editorial review treatment.”
When pressed by Carvajal for an explanation of its activities, amazon.com executives insist there’s no conflict of interest between advertising and editorial on the site “because the company reserves the right to reject books that do not meet their standards of quality.” Such arguments are highly unlikely if not downright deceitful. It’s doubtful that amazon.com has ever turned away a publisher with US$10,000 in co-op funds. But that’s exactly what Mary Morouse, amazon.com’s vice president for merchandising told Carvajal: “We don’t take real estate on our home page and sell it. I can’t just let anybody believe that you give us a check and we’re going to put it up there.”
What’s most disturbing, at least from the question of integrity, is that paid-for reviews on amazon.com are indistinguishable from unpaid reviews. There are no tags, visual references, or notices about what is advertising and what is an editorial review. By way of defense, amazon.com representatives told Carvajal that the site’s experienced editors protect customers by screening books. With regard to tagging or flagging paid advertisements that appear as editorial reviews, “I think that would clutter it up. The customer experience is really clean and I want to keep it clean,” Morouse told Carvajal.
Disingenuously disguising paid advertising to look like editorial content can be called a lot of things, but “clean” isn’t one of them.
A day after the New York Times piece appeared, the Associated Press reported that effective March 1, amazon.com will disclose which of its “displays” have been purchased with co-op advertising funds. It’s not clear if amazon.com’s editorial content qualifies as a “display.”
For the most part that’s good news. Everyone makes mistakes and assuming amazon.com “tags” all editorial content that is really an advertisement, the online retailer is to be commended on its quick response to meet its customer needs.
For small independent publishers here’s something that’s potentially problematic:
Effective immediately, amazon.com will fully refund any recommended book regardless of the book’s condition. “It doesn’t matter how dog-eared or worn it is,” amazon.com founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos was quoted as saying in the AP article. “Even if you ripped out the pages because you thought the book was so bad, you can still return the pieces to us for a full refund.”
In most cases, books returned to or unsold by a retailer are returned to the publisher for a full refund or credit.
For all these reasons, ARTS & FARCES is cancelling its associate relationship with amazon.com as soon as possible. We’ve already removed all of our book and music reviews as well as any non-editorial links to amazon.com. Any review (or hypertext link) you find here is editorial in nature, provided without advertising support. [ed. note: we reactivated our affiliate relationship with amazon.com in October 2001.]
And what of the publishers who purchase the “complete amazon.com editorial review treatment”? If Steven Berkowitz, president and publisher of IDG Books is typical, one has to assume that most publishers don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with the practice. “In a virtual world, placement is critical,” Berkowitz told Carvajal, noting that IDG had paid to feature at least 20 titles and would continue to do so. The program works well, he said, because customers feel “the titles are recommended.”
Even the barkers in Las Vegas have more integrity, or at least are more cognizant of their lack of it. A few years ago, my wife and I were driving around the outskirts of town and came across a sign in front of one of those 1940s vintage motor court motels: “Elvis Slept Here… Owner Recommended.”
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.